I will be meeting with the developers and officers from Wandsworth Borough Council on Tuesday 27th January to discuss further. If you have specific questions you would like me to raise please get in touch: RStokes@Wandsworth.gov.uk

I am submitting this response as a Wandsworth Borough Councillor for Earlsfield Ward. It is informed by the views of residents who have contacted me during the consultation period for this planning application.

Whilst residents are broadly supportive of moves to regenerate the site, they have raised specific concerns relating to the scale and intensity of the proposed development and, in turn, the potential impact on local infrastructure, particularly in Earlsfield and the neighbouring ward of Tooting. These are summarised below.

Issues raised by Earlsfield residents

1. Transport and roads

Concerns:

Adequacy of local public transport to absorb proposed numbers of people visiting the stadium on match-days

Match day traffic bringing area to a gridlock, particularly on Wimbledon Road, Plough Lane and Garratt Lane

General concern about the validity of the transport assessment given its timing (Summer holidays, pre-Olympics), plus assumptions made about the number of visitors using public transport rather than driving.

Suggestions put forward by residents:

Increasing capacity of trains through provision of additional carriages

Introducing pedestrian crossings on the major roads near to the site

Exploring additional bus routes to ease access to the stadium e.g between Earlsfield and Wimbledon

Reducing stadium capacity

2. Parking

Concerns:

Insufficient number of proposed residential parking spaces

Insufficient on-site parking facilities for match day vehicles, including coaches

Absence of drop off points for visitors and team coaches

Neighbouring streets being clogged up with match day parking so residents are unable to park themselves

Suggestions put forward by residents:

Increasing on-site parking provision (both match day and residential) by reducing the proposed number of residential properties. Plans should aim to provide one parking space per residential property.

Loss of the weekend market that is currently hosted on the Greyhound site and which is currently used my many Earlsfield residents

Suggestions put forward by residents:

Additional policing and marshalling on match days

Consideration given to ‘public use space’ on the site which could be used for activities of benefit to the community e.g. weekend markets.

5. Flood risk

Concerns:

Capacity of the area to sustain the scale of development proposed given its flood risk

Other issues and questions

In addition to the above, I would like to raise some more general points for consideration:

1. Use of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

The development will provide a large community infrastructure levy. What consideration is Merton giving to disbursing funds to the neighbouring Wandsworth wards of Earlsfield and Tooting which are set to be greatly affected by the development?

2. Weighting given to non-Merton residents

Many residents have expressed concern that their views will not count as much as those living in Merton. I would therefore welcome guarantees that this will not be the case and Wandsworth residents will have equal voice in the proposed development, both during this consultation phase and thereafter.

3. Use of the stadium on non-match days

How will the stadium be used on non-match days? More generally, what plans are there to ensure the proposed development will utilise its full potential and serve as an asset to the community?

Related

AFC Wimbledon have already worked hard to answer most of the questions raised here.
The much more intrusive development at the Ram Brewery site probably needs to be considered alongside the Plough Lane changes.
AND the Brocklebank/Atheldene/Sherwood Lodge/Wilna Road and 310-320 Earlsfield Road sites have still been largely ignored and neglected by WBC. Making a fuss about Merton’s plans when more local needs have been pressing for several years is a bit hollow.
Earlsfield needs action not yet more words.